Though macroeconomics has some difficulty asserting itself as a science in its own right, we can be sure it exists as a point of view that informs other disciplines, e.g.: history is famously given to economic interpretations; government exists to frustrate markets insofar as needed to create civility; ethics require paying the same price as everyone else; money is power in its liquid form; morality entails productive activity; etc.

Economic science is problematic insofar as it has no choice but to essay the domestic sphere: labor availability is of course essential to any productive process; and any representation of the monetary flows through a capitalist economy must involve at least one household sector to receive the profits earned by industrial sectors.

While households are indispensible to economic reasoning, their description is always culturally laden. Profits can be reinvested or directed into passive incomes for infirm, aged, creative, or indolent people. Wages can be used to create homes in which the next generation is nurtured, or to create diversions for those passing through life with no thought of posterity. Ultimately, ‘the economy’ might best be represented as culture’s interaction with manufacturing technique and natural resources.

If, as we fear, our essays on the household sector fail to arrive at fully satisfying conclusions, we nonetheless hope their combined effect might be to severely narrow the scope of indeterminacy that culture imposes on economic science. Our ultimate aim is for economics to accept cultural and demographic shifts in the household sectors as no more challenging than technical changes in the industrial sectors.